Slashdot Mirror
US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers On 24-Hour Alert (defenseone.com)
DefenseOne reports on new preparations at Barksdale Air Force Base:
The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991. That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base's 11,000-foot runway -- dubbed the "Christmas tree" for their angular markings -- could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment's notice... Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come...
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.
General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"
While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information, it does seem like a step backward.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country. They were always sold to the American public as a temporary weapons system due to the Soviet, then Chinese, threat. Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating.
Even North Korea must know that internally.
But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.
Of course I'll take a lot of heat for taking this position. But after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill. No pun intended.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Call up Major Kong, he knew how to handle a nuclear weapon. Ahhhhh hoooo!
This would send a clear, unambiguous to each and every nation that would do America harm:
"We have no idea what we're doing, but we're gonna look real tough doing it."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I'm curious the strategic use of bombers on 24 hour standby, when there are enough ICBMs, including those in nuclear subs which are likely really, really close to North Korea already, to totally decimate that country. North Korea could be a smoldering ruin before the bombers would even leave US airspace (even if they were on standby). So I wonder if the bombers would simply be more "obvious" to Kim Jong or what?
Better known as 318230.
He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.
But at least there's all that winning going around.
In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
MAD only works against a RATIONAL enemy. Guess how many leaders aren't rational.
Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?
Also, I always wanted to try heroine without suffering the consequences.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Can be recalled after launch. Missiles not so much.
... this is your fault. Fuck you.
I don't respond to AC's.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal. Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, this is just one more bizarre thing that seems to be bending to the will of a crackpot president. I hope if he decides to use nukes that Tillerson and Mattis are in the room to beat the living shit out of him before anyone hears the order.
----- obSig
Once upon a time, I bought and started playing Pandemic. Right after, just as I started enjoying the game, there was the West African Ebola outbreak. And now? I start replaying Fallout and this happens.
That's it. From here on out my only entertainment will be re-watching the Death by Snu Snu episode.
Exactly!
The approximately half of the US voters who voted for Trump are directly at fault!
The approximately half who voted for Clinton, after all, were supporting war again Russia, much more sane!
Or, just possibly, not.
most of the pilots are younger than the bombers they fly. 486
That's not who most of us are worried about.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They have been working on a new toy, precision guided nuclear bombs. They want to play with the new toy. If they can't drop them on somebody they can at least put it on the bombers and park them out where everybody can see them. Also the New START treaty goes into effect Feb 5th, 2018. They may feel like with fewer missiles they need the bombers to be more ready.
how about spending that money to GET RID OF THEM!
To a large extent we have already done that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A Korea unified in prosperity, peacefully cranking out bigscreens, electric Kias and bridge beams will motivate the surrounding nations to recycle even more weapons.
Brown lives matter. http://africasacountry.com/201... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But you might end up wishing you could've...
Anyway, as I was saying before I was so rudely modded down for stating the truth...
Bipolar? Oh no...
He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.
But at least there's all that winning going around.
In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It's not clear exactly who the U.S. is planning to bomb. Is it North Korea? Russia? Iran? Afghanistan? Then there's that business over the Islands in the China Sea. Venezuela, they were told they're on notice. And something's going on in Niger or so I've heard. Did I leave anyone out? Syria? They got it coming too.
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I know folks who voted Trump because they saw Hilary as a war hawk. She is (more a Chicken hawk than anything else since I can't see her ever in harms way) but Trump certainly wasn't the answer. At least Hilary wouldn't be riling up Iran just to appeal to her base.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There are better ways to compensate.
Like you know, getting pissed on by drunken Russian Hookers.
It's most likely that the weapon of choice vs North Korea is a B61-11 or B61-12, the most recent versions of an air-dropped weapon.
The air-dropped weapons are likely more precise and more suitable to use against reinforced underground structures with less surface yield.
Ballistic missiles, whether land based or sea-based can only use one particular warhead intimately configured with the delivery system and guidance, because of the need to match the mechanical dynamics & mass with the guidance. I.e. there is no way to change the weapon. Additionally, they are not as precise--they re-enter the atmosphere at extreme velocities within a giant ionization cloud, and prior to re-entry they have only one chance for guidance, immediately after release, and are thereafter falling, unpowered.
The ICBM and SLBM warheads are also very large (200-500 kt) and intended as retaliation. If you want genocide, any of them will do, but if you intend a military attack then you'd want to be more specific.
Against DPRK you'd be looking at using 'bunker buster' weapons---there are rumors that there are nuclear designs which may direct maximum force downward seismically (e.g. use the primary to accelerate a secondary penetrator downward?)---and probably low-yield neutron weapons against the artillery units threatening Seoul. Probably under 10kt.
Those need to be launched by bombers, or maybe from cruise missiles carried by those bombers.
In any event, it's insanity as it undoubtedly gets Seoul, Tokyo or maybe even Seattle obliterated. DPRK has plenty good enough missiles to put whatever size warhead they have already over Korea and Japan---and missile defense is awfully difficult. DPRK could easily launch 40 missiles simultaneously, four of which are nuclear, and each one puts out 10 decoys in space .
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves who voted for who?
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, this is just one more bizarre thing that seems to be bending to the will of a crackpot president.
Time is a strange thing when talking nukes. The only time of import is reaction time of your adversaries from the point in time they discover they are under attack to the point in time they can effectively respond or are destroyed. No other consideration is relevant.
ICBMs have a more or less fixed time to target with relatively little possibility of successfully obscuring launches or improving general characteristics of the technology simply due to energetics of the system.
Stealthy strategic bombers and submarines especially when coupled with hypersonics have a much greater capacity to benefit from technological advancement placing significant pressure on reaction time. From what is publically known Russians are currently kicking ass and taking names in the hypersonics department while the US is sleeping on their feet.
I hope if he decides to use nukes that Tillerson and Mattis are in the room to beat the living shit out of him before anyone hears the order.
What makes you think anyone deserves a second chance? Ya'll voted for a geriatric petulant unstable idiot knowing full well what consequences could be. Count every day you are not vaporized a blessing.
The crazy guy in NK is also somewhat of a figurehead. There are always tons of older generals standing around him in the official photos. He only has the power his military grants him. It's an actual whole country with people in it, and not democratic, but there is a political party running things, not a kingdom.
There are English language North Korean books, from the DPRK point of view, that you can buy right in the Kindle eBook store. It is obviously totally the biased 'official' propaganda, but it's important for people to realize the NK leadership are not Marvel Comics villians. There is an 'official' Kim Jong Il (the previous leader and current leader's father) biography published by the Foreign Language Publishing House, and since they are, (uh..) kinda a non-profit, it's very inexpensive. Checking stuff out and not treating our enemies like comic book villians is the way to resolve things.
The idea from the start is not to scare Kim, he cannot afford to be scared / to give up. No, the idea is to scare
1) the North Korean people, most people (99.99%) want that regime to terminate, they want to be free, but they have to pretend the opposite, to act as if they were the happiest people in the world, and
2) scare the high ranked in the military ; they know Kim cannot win a war, and he won't surrender (to end at The Hague court).
In both groups, the US expects a violent reaction from these people, perhaps a revolution.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
That's a really interesting take on the Rosatom transaction. Did you get it from Fox News, perhaps? Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
What really happened is that Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, bought a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian company with 20% of the US uranium mining capacity. This deal had to be approved by a committee composed of a dozen different US government agencies, of which Clinton was the head of one (as Secretary of State), along with agencies in Canada and Kazakhstan, and stock markets in Toronto and Johannesburg.
Apparently none of them found sufficient reason to halt the sale. Are you arguing that Clinton has somehow secretly convinced all those people involved to permit the sale AND stay silent about the convincing? And even if Clinton had decided that the deal wasn't a good idea, she couldn't have unilaterally stopped it -- she would have had to convince Obama that there was a national security reason to do so.
So was there a national security reason to halt the sale? What Rosatom bought was the mines, meaning they can dig up rock and refine it, but they can only sell it to the same people that Uranium One could always sell it to. They don't have a license to export the uranium, so who cares?
dom
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
Yes and maybe prepared to use them if North Korea strikes back with one after we start bombing them which every indication is that Trump is ready. Please to God I hope I am wrong.
http://saveie6.com/
There are strategic resources for the equipment needed for renewable energy production and use. Rare earth metals for motor magnets for electric cars, as one example. Some of the 'new' critical resources are more localized and scarce than petroleum ever could have been. There will be new resource wars, just as there have always been.
You sure there aren't any other deranged, paranoid, irrelevant talking points you'd like to work in there? Surely Russia is involved in this *somehow*.
>President Draft Dodger Because Clinton didn't and Obama (or you) wouldn't have, right?
Big difference between someone who did and others who might have done.
Somebody needs to send Trump a copy of "On the Beach". Radiation sickness is not a pleasant way to go. You vomit and deficate like the flu. According to the book, you might get better, but it only lasts for two weeks before the symptoms recall and then you die. http://www.atomicarchive.com/E... I think people need to hear the graphic effects of what a nuclear war would be like.
go to defcon 4!
Only if launchers are modified specifically for tests. The deployed ballistic missile weapon systems, e.g. ICBM's and SLBM's have no such capability.
Firstly, there is no reliable means of reception by the missile or a reliable command system to transmit such messages, and if there were, it could be exploited by an enemy. Warheads are made to be very robust and sealed, given that they re-enter the atmosphere at stupendous speeds. They don't have any antennae or radios.
The first monolith must have malfunctioned, need another correction, please? Before it's too late.
4wdloop
...As in : your government is batshit crazy, THE batshit crazy they are trying to sell Iran/NK as. The US folk definitively lost any handle they had on their own government.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They can be re-targeted before launch. That's it.
After launched, their course is fixed, and non-recallable. Ballistic missiles run out of fuel very quickly after launch and fall to their targets on gravity alone (which is the meaning of 'ballistic'). The course is set by the launch dynamics, and a bit of maneuvering in space for a minute or two refines the target accuracy.
and here you are, as irrelevant as you would be everywhere else.
North Korea doesn't have the ability to launch a massive counter-strike, so their continued existence after rattling the nuclear sabre the way they've been doing depends on utterly on the US sticking to the "no first strike" policy. Yet TFA claims that General Goldfein is asking his staff to come up with ways to use nukes in combat. To me that sounds very much like the US Joint Chiefs are preparing contingency plans for pre-emptive strikes and "small" tactical nukes after that. To be fair, it is the clear duty of the Joint Chiefs to come up for contingency plans for pretty much every possible scenario, even the incredibly unlikely ones. But, one doesn't juggle squadrons around and re-assign personnel for unlikely contingencies.
Meanwhile, there have been a slew of articles which suggest the US Navy is in dire straits. It's my understanding that successive administrations have forced them to cut back on new ship purchases and skimp on maintenance so long for the sake of short term availability, that now some ships are sitting in dry dock for years, waiting for repair. Likewise, there has been a clear trend to lower head counts in the ground forces as well. The focus has been on smaller, more nimble forces, aimed at dealing with insurgents and the like. That smaller force has become very sensitive to combat losses, has been forced to keep guys posted in combat far longer than expected (stop-loss) and is deployed in a number of hot spots all over the world. The ground forces are just not prepared to get into a land war in Asia right now. As an aside, I'm not sure I buy the fears of fanatically loyal human wave attacks. There was some concern about that in Iraq as I recall, because both Iraq and Iran had an established history of using such tactics. There were human wave attacks in the Korean conflict sure, but as in Iran, Iraq and WWII Russia, human waves always rely on political officers at the back, sending the hapless troops into battle at gun point, threatening family members back home if necessary. But, as we saw in Iraq, once the troops got totally cut off from high command, most couldn't surrender fast enough. (there is an apocryphal tale of an Iraqi regiment that tried to surrender to a BBC camera crew)
The only arm of the US forces that seems to be ready to open a can of whoop ass in Korea is the Air Force. Problem is, there is a long standing dictum "You can bomb it, shell it until the rubble bounces, but you don't control it until you stick a kid with a rifle on it." The Air Force is guaranteed to wipe out anything on the surface taller than a dandelion with conventional weapons alone. But the Koreans have had decades to dig in and there is a lot of evidence of their tunnelling prowess in the tunnels the south Koreans have intercepted at the DMZ. The upshot is that the Air Force can not win the war on it's own.
With that situation, it is going to be very tempting to just nuke the place.
And we have Donald Trump with his finger on the button.
Donald Trump...let that sink in for a moment.
Tactically, this is shaping up to be a bigger version of Vietnam and the US had to worry back then about the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China who were not only pretty close allies at the time, but backing the north Vietnamese. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all far more savvy poli
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
>. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing
And of course the way we've BEEN using them, as deterrents. I'd say the primary use of nukes is with them remaining in their silos. Having them in strategic locations has been very useful, without pressing the button.
Here we have the US military using them, by freshening up the paint on the runway near them. That gets people's attention, and that's the point.
... those “30 years” of war between Iran and Iraq, where more than a MILLION people died, by the way, were because, remember, Saddam, who had always been a major asshole, was still the USA‘s favorite "ally" (read: vassal/dog) in the region, and the US told him, that if he stops Khomeini, he’d get to keep the oil wells he conquered, and would keep getting the support (read: weapons, training, money) like all that time before.
But Saddam didn't get in, because the stupid Persians kept defending themselves, because they had the third or fourth largest military in the world at that time. This changed literally overnight, when Saddam became stroppy, wanted his promised oil wells anyway, and decided to take them from Kuwait. Suddenly, the USA got stroppy too... we can’t have it that Saddam doesn’t invade what he’s told to invade! ... But honestly, *what did he do different than before?* All he did, was *turn around*. ^^
Suddenly he was "The new Hitler".
And the best part is: The only reason Iran became such a big military power, with the third or fourth biggest military in the world, was because the USA previously armed them to their teeth too! "As a stronghold against the reds." ... Yeah, unless millions of you are prepared to die for it, your system won’t improve either. Things still need to get a *lot* worse for that to happen.)
But they had installed such an evil cruel dictator, that the Persians turned to Khomeini as the better alternative, in their desperation. Imagine how fucked-up of a situation you would have to be in, to turn to the WBC, to get rid of your president! (Okay, nowadays, that sounds almost reasonable. ^^)
Which, interestingly, ended in a semi-peaceful revolution! The military stopped shooting people because they realized that the people were so determined, they stopped giving a fuck about if they died. (So much about how you actually get rid of a dictator.
So whatever fake news reality distortion scheme about these things is going on in your "Number One!" (in propaganda, online trolls, and population control too) country... using the war between Iran and Iraq as an argument, for them to NOT have nukes to stop the USA from fucking with them, is REALLY FUCKED-UP! :)
That whole shit might not even have started, if they would have had nukes. (Remember, that Iran and Afghanistan were comparatively very modern countries back then, with women wearing mini-skirts and going to universities; with philosophy and sports clubs; and being a cool tourist destination for hippies! Extrapolate THAT!
But yeah, Pakistan did have nukes, and still got made to breed "mercenaries" for Afghanistan by the USA. Now known as the Taliban. I guess it also requires being determined enough to actually threaten the CIA with *using* them, instead of being best friends and drinking tea together, like those CIA operatives did with Hamid Gul (Pakistan’s ex military general who oversaw the construction of the nukes, told Bin Laden what to do, and was so crazy that the *Al Qaeda* gave him house arrest because he threatened to fly nuclear warheads to the US, and even Al Qaeda leaders knew that wouldn’t have ended well for them!).
So what do I know. I only have a dad who worked as an reporter and operative in this clusterfuck for 4 decades now. I’ve only been threatened to be killed by terrorist groups twice. One of those being backed by my own western government.
Maybe my flaw is that I don't hate *anyone*, not the USA, not Kim Yong whatever, not Israel, not the Palestinians, not even the literal Nazis. They're all fucked-up people, and all I want, is to fix shit so that we can have a self-determined happy life. Even you.
I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, the constant tone of movies and tv and news from that era is depressing, a lot about the cold war and nuclear mutually assured destruction.
I really hoped my children would get to grow up without these threats hanging over their heads.
In my opinion, the only acceptable outcome between any two states with brandishing weapons, is a diplomatic one. No amount of chest thumping or insults are worth killing 10s of millions of people. It's immoral and unconscionable.
The late 70’s and 80’s. Oh please. Try the late 50’s and 60’s. Now those were some scary cold war times to have grown up. They were still showing us educational films in grade school teaching us how to recognize the signs of nukes falling and how we needed to take shelter. The “duck and cover” jingle was a real thing. They were still testing the air raid sirens in my home town on a weekly basis back then.
Unfortunately I suspect it is a matter of when, not if, we have nuclear, biologic and cyber attacks. There are just too many weapons running around and more actors developing or acquiring them every year.
More likely than not your kids are not going to notice any of this, what with Justin Bieber’s new full torso tats taking the twitter-verse by storm, and more selfies to take and post to Snapchat.
Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal.
We were warned that perhaps it was a bad idea to give nuclear launch authority to the crazy real estate mogul/reality TV star. But the electoral college made sure the 'merica contingent prevailed.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The "threat" posed by NK is completely different, and an administration's failure to recognise that means they are helping NK in its goals, not reducing the possibility of an attack. Kim Jong Un does not seem to be fearful of american aggression - he seems to be actively provoking it. A small gesture on his part produces a massive reaction from the USA. What an ego trip that is!
And the thought of having thousands of megatons "pointed" at his tiny, little, country: 25 million people, means nothing. A nuclear war wouldn't do much to alter their standard of living - at least, not that of the survivors. So the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is a failure. If it was ever a plausible concept, that is because it was intended to be used against an adversary who "loved their children too". But KJU is not in that category.
But really, this response has nothing to do with trying the dissuade North Korea from progressing down the nuclear route. This is just a "fear response". Just like all those scared americans who are armed to the teeth. Their guns and other weapons are merely safety-blankets: bought and hoarded in an attempt to make them feel safe. And resurrecting the bomber readiness status is just another act of domestic reassurance. Just like the gun-nuts who spend all their time cleaning and oiling their weapons to keep their emotions of fear and panic under control.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Yeah, because Russia really didn't have enough Uranium already to build some nukes ...
Oh. You educated me. Clearly I was ignorant. Sorry about that.. I'd edit my comment if I could.
----- obSig
The United States of America has more nuclear weapons than any other country on the planet.
And they have handed the launch codes to an intellectually lazy, narcissistic asshole.
Have I got that about right?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In my opinion, the only acceptable outcome between any two states with brandishing weapons,
is their leaders doing the fighting, like in the good ol' times.
With the difference that we'll be sitting at home with popcorn instead of dying with them.
If this was the rule, I betcha we'd have a LOT fewer wars and a LOT more talking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not sure that I buy that he's batshit crazy. I don't know how smart he is but his family have groomed him for this position so I'm sure he is at least well trained / indoctrinated and I'm sure corrupt and cruel, but not crazy as in does random things with no end in mind.
The focus should be on improving things for the N. Korean people (who no-one really has any beef with) not on making things worse for him directly. If there's any way to achieve democracy and freedom in a united Korea (even if it means us feigning humiliation) then we should move toward it, if that can be achieved then the Koreans themselves will ouster him or at least relegate him to being just another mega-rich asshole.
They must want something, find it and dangle it in front of them, I thought DT was meant to be the arch deal-maker...
Nullius in verba
Can these planes also carry MOABs, I would have thought that those would be more frightening to NK as we are more likely to actually drop them.
Nullius in verba
You mean he was responsible for the complete lack of any local response to the emergency in PR? Supplies and personal were dispatched. Problem is, the federal response relies on local boots on the ground that know the region, have distribution centers, and transportation available. It also depends on local leaders actually participating rather than just giving politically divisive interviews while not attending a single FEMA conference call.
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible.
But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all.
In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
Clinton did dodge the draft, Trump did not.
He's was an Australian, not an Austrian. But he renounced his Australian citizenship for US citizenship so he could make more money.
It is used for more than energy. In fact most of the value of oil comes from none energy use. As I understand it 97% of the value of oil comes from the 3% that is not used for fuel.
If we only need the 3% not required for fuel then the west has sufficient home grown supplies for decades. Consequently random unstable places around the world can go stew. So can all the places governed by dictators real and defacto (so Russia included).
Rare earth metals are not localized, they're deposited all over the world. They're rare because they're spread out and it is expensive to concentrate them. The US was a major producer before the Chinese started selling cheaper.
The neighbouring country, Ukraine has plenty of oil, so does the recently annexed Crimean Sea. For some reason, Russia isn't worried about oil from the middle-east.
From wher do you get your facts? Ukraine is an importer of gas and oil. Coal they do export but that's not what this discussion is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Has it really come down to creating facts to support your viewpoint on a country?
So you're argument is that Clinton and fellow shitbag Eric Holder (also on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) found no reason to block the sale, huh? That's a real fuckin' surprise right there. You'd put the fox in charge of the hen-house.
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
Yeah, medical - Four for College, One for Bad Feet. His medical condition was so bad that he could only play football, tennis, squash & golf.
Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
Of course not. I much prefer just to take the word of random ACs on Slashdot who don't cite a single source.
A Strange Game.
The only winning move is NOT to play.
How about a nice game of chess ?
I'd like to note that Rupert Murdoch is an Austrian, a European.
Almost sure this is a joke. Almost.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I most agree with your post but not with this last bit. For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want. The fact is the DPRK hasn't got anything we want or did not up till now. Sure we did want security for our allies in the region but not bad enough to give the DPRK anything for it. Now that they have the bomb we might be willing to negotiation for our own security.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
To settle an international dispute? Great idea.
I'd pay to see Putin wipe the floor with Trump.
Then again... I probably already am.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dial-A-Yield B61 bombs are still in active development.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
with no mod points...
You mean the Generals Kim Jong Un regularly has shot, or eaten by dogs, or blown up, publicly executed in some-other extreme manner? Those Generals? And which of them is going to try to control or limit him? None of them if they want to live. NK is a cult of personality and the current Kim on top is the center of power.
As opposed to our President who cannot do anything like that and has not tried to do such to any of our generals or any of his advisors who dared to cross him. All he can do is fire those who don't agree. They can then go to the press and complain about him and why they were fired. Not one of them has been hauled out and executed for crossing the Beloved Cheeto.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Interesting "coincidence" around Trump's executive order authorizing the activation of retired military personnel was signed recently..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...
This was signed with the explanation that it is solely intended to do so in order to get the air force pilot rosters back to their mandated minimums by activating retired air force pilots. It is still cause for concern when viewed in conjunction with these other activities..
Reading from an article from: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/...
"But the broad wording of the executive order seemed to imply that the executive branch would have the power to call up retired military officers and force them back into service for any reason, as the “emergency” Trump used to justify the executive order was extremely vague: “the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”"
<quote><p>I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, the constant tone of movies and tv and news from that era is depressing, a lot about the cold war and nuclear mutually assured destruction.</p><p>I really hoped my children would get to grow up without these threats hanging over their heads.</p></quote>
<p>The late 70’s and 80’s. Oh please. Try the late 50’s and 60’s. Now those were some scary cold war times to have grown up. They were still showing us educational films in grade school teaching us how to recognize the signs of nukes falling and how we needed to take shelter. The “duck and cover” jingle was a real thing. They were still testing the air raid sirens in my home town on a weekly basis back then.</p><p>Unfortunately I suspect it is a matter of when, not if, we have nuclear, biologic and cyber attacks. There are just too many weapons running around and more actors developing or acquiring them every year.</p><p>More likely than not your kids are not going to notice any of this, what with Justin Bieber’s new full torso tats taking the twitter-verse by storm, and more selfies to take and post to Snapchat.</p></quote>
Growing up in 1960 and living less than 5 miles from the Pentagon, I knew as a child that I wouldn't live to be 35,
because we (at least ground zero) would be nuked before then. Duck and cover had just gone out of fashion,
but we still had the weekly air raid siren -- it just signaled that you had only a few minutes to live.
You can go ahead and parrot the propaganda that the US spreads about North Korea. They will spread their propaganda within North Korea about what conditions are like in the US. Both are distortions.
One of the key words to pick at in your first paragraph is 'regularly.' Every instance of that sort of severe punishment is amplified as propaganda against NK. Why wouldn't it. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
What leftist advocate within the United States wouldn't celebrate severe punishment of high ranking Military officials in this country for corruption?
Your language usage, i.e. 'Beloved Cheeto' shows that you're quite fond of the kind of rhetoric Authoritarian Regimes like to use to ridicule their opponents. Too bad you can't be in charge, dude. Too bad.
MOAB requires a cargo plane to drop, it won't fit through bomb bay doors but must roll out the back of a C-130 or C-17.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
There are always tons of older generals standing around him in the official photos.
That is for propaganda purposes. They are there with their notepads to sell the story that Kim is a brilliant leader, ready to impart his infallible, all-encompassing wisdom to the experts.
The General executed by AA gun was reported in NK media first. The Uncle fed to the dogs was reported in NK media first. SK and China and our own intelligence sources all report that he has total control. He is not controlled by nor limited by his Generals but rather he controls them.
I used "Beloved Cheeto" in comparison with the terminology used for Kim Jong Un. And because while I voted for him, and gladly so compared to the alternative. He was far from my preferred choice. But keep making assumptions, so far you are 0 for at least 4 in assuming my intentions or meanings.
Nice try trolling, comrade.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Posting to undo mod.
Perhaps this is just a ploy to boost the perceived importance of the B-52 to help justify a budget for its re-engining program? https://youtu.be/vHdIRwKtnig
Growing up in 1960 and living less than 5 miles from the Pentagon, I knew as a child that I wouldn't live to be 35, because we (at least ground zero) would be nuked before then. Duck and cover had just gone out of fashion, but we still had the weekly air raid siren -- it just signaled that you had only a few minutes to live.
Yup. I grew up right next door to Vandenberg AFB. They tested all of the new missiles there. We had Titan and Minuteman missile launches monthly, sometimes weekly. One day they launched two Minuteman missiles simultaneously from adjoining pads. Just to show everyone that we could do a salvo.
We were warned that we were a top target of the Soviets. I remember the speculation that there were at least half a dozen warheads assigned to our locale. Great fun.
As Weird Al once said... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t039p6xqutU
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
You're assuming a direct correlation between an oil based economy and nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction. While there are entanglements between the two the benefit of MAD is not lost due to decreasing reliance on oil. MAD has been proven to work. We can sign disarmament treaties all day long, but who upholds it? Who ensures all sides are adhering to the agreement so that one country doesn't stand up and say "surprise!" We had an agreement with Iran to not develop nuclear weapons, North Korea as well. For years we gave them billions of dollars while they continued to pursue nuclear weapons in secret. What makes anyone think we can negotiate with them now and have them act honorably? It is to laugh. Our reduced reliance on foreign oil gives us a stronger economic position. We don't have to support these rogue regimes anymore. We can dry up their funding and still maintain our position on the global stage without having to wage war. But that doesn't change the fact that if another country attacks us and we have the capability to respond they stand to be devastated. That deterrence remains in tact. Even crazy people like Un have to understand that he loses everything if he plays that card. Iran too. Sure in the case of Iran they're motivated by Islam, however, they're also pragmatic to a certain extent. While some may be willing to blow up the whole world for a shot at paradise those people aren't typically in leadership roles. You can guess that all Trump supporters back white supremacists but you'd be wrong. Even Trump himself has denounced those folks. If we want to have a serious conversation let's have it and stop with the false equivalence. I think Trump is way better for our country than someone selling our uranium to Russia for personal gain, and compromising national security to obfuscate her self dealing and pay to play scheme. But perhaps that's because I'm not blinded by the mainstream media who isn't even attempting to hide their bias anymore. I'm in the American boat, and so I don't think America first is an unreasonable position. I can't think of any other country in the world that doesn't put its own interests first. It's just basic common sense. There's nothing racist about it. Everyone looks out for their own interests first. And I don't think Trump wants war. But he's also not afraid to stand up against our enemies and after so many years of capitulation that's a nice change as far as I'm concerned.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
And you believe NK has not only developed this brand new weakon but also has enough to blanket the U.S.? You're not Trump's military advisor, are you?
well, they could nuke the Pee Resident when he's on one of his golf courses.....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Not sure why we would put bombers back on alert status when we have several platforms on site capable of dealing with NK already.
Both ICBM's and Cruise Missiles ( all variants, including nuclear ) can be launched by a subsurface platform. Guarantee we have more there than the one the public knows about.
Conventional or nuclear weaponry can also be delivered by aircraft via the nearby aircraft carrier(s). Even more cruise missiles ( all variants ) via the ships that make up the battle groups.
Bombers really wouldn't be required.
That said, Kimmo isn't gonna lob a nuke at anyone unless he's got nothing to lose. Though any missile launch will certainly be treated as a potential nuclear armed device.
We start a conventional campaign against NK and he thinks we're about to take him down ? ( ala Iraq ) Then, yes. He'll launch everything he has as a last " fuck you " to the US. Nukes, chems and even bio stuff if he has any.
The NBC possibility is the only reason the US would use a nuclear pre-emptive strike. You would want those delivery platforms and payloads obliterated without question before he had the option to use them.
Thus the dangers of obtaining / stockpiling those weapon types. You raise the risk of a nuclear first strike on your country dramatically due to the risk they pose to everyone else.
If any of this comes to fruition, we'll get to see first hand how well the THAAD and Sea Based Ballistic Shield systems work.
( Or how effective the first strike is )
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq
But is it really? I don't think we have enough data to say that. The only certified nuclear states in existence are either US allies (France, Israel), or countries with a huge military. The US also hasn't invaded ANY country with a very powerful military in the last 50 years (for example, North Korea's military regularly hovers around a million men). Iraq at the time they were first invaded only had about 350,000 men in their army, 100,000 of those were recently called-up "reservists", and the US felt it had to ally with half the world to do the job. So it seems equally likely its the military and not the nukes doing the deterrence.
Its quite possible for any small nuclear state without a top-4 military, the US would simply identify their nukes, and take out their ability to deploy them as job one (normally, taking out air defenses are job one).
Why is parent post modded Troll? Seems insightful to me. Did Breitbart or the Trumpanzees buy mod points?T
Only I can judge you.
Do you even know how oil is processed and used? Even if we only used 3% of the raw material, we would probably still have to refine as much of it as we do now. We still need to process as much crude as it would take to extract those "non-energy" compounds.
If anything, we would then have to figure out what to do with the "energy by products".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
No, not really. The real nuclear powers have arsenals measured in the thousands with well tested means to deliver those weapons to targets.
None of these so-called "new nuclear powers" have that.
The best they could really do is a sneak attack with a cargo container or something along those lines. That makes them somewhat dangerous by highly unpredictable. That puts them on the same level as some non-state actor.
No. Arming yourself with nukes is a quick way to make Russia or the US think you need to be taken out before you can get really dangerous. It's painting a target on your forehead.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want.
"Everybody is looking for something." - The Eurythmics
Posing a hypothetical wherein someone doesn't want something, is ridiculous. Power can mean "endangering your safety", if that makes more sense to you.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I love community colleges too.
You're missing that I'm saying he has pretty strong opinions on what to do about north korea when it's clear he doesn't even have the sort of introductory knowledge you'd acquire from a community college.
I'm sure that if I argued with him about it he'd accuse me of being brainwashed by the "MSM" which is like triple irony because he no doubt formed his ignorant opinions from years of fox news soundbites and headline skimming.
The original poster was describing a strike, not retaliation.
He used the word "strike" in the context of responding to them, not a unilateral first strike. And the article that this all started from deals with the return of the B52 fleet to hot-standby -- not a first strike status, a retaliatory posture.
You have to be the single most ignorant individual I've dealt with today...
Yep, when you fail to make a logical argument, resort to personal insult. Thanks for playing.
Yes, there are several instances of rather extreme executions performed by the NK regime in recent times. They are nasty and ruthless in how they rule the country. And all that stuff was public because when they identify someone who has betrayed 'the revolution' they want EVERYBODY to know they took care of it. The above extreme measures of 'discipline' were performed by the Communist Party with Kim as leader. Not because he had a tummy ache and needed to take it out on somebody.
For the record, since you're calling me 'comrade', in my book collection, I have a nearly complete set of the English language edition of 'The Collected Works of Josef Stalin' published by the Foreign Language Press, Moscow, in the early 1950's. I'm still trying to chase down two of the thirteen volumes.
I have one of Mao's 'Little Red Books' in my collection. I have a pamphlet of a Teng Shio Peng speech published in English by the Chinese Foreign Language in the early 1960s, before he was 'taken down' for about a decade before being rehabilitated. It's probably extremely rare, because they burned stuff like that during the Cultural Revolution in China.
A few weeks ago, at Half-Price Books, I came upon a 1992 copy of Volume 1 of Kim Sun Un's Collected Works, published by the Foreign Language Publishing House, Pyonghang. So I snapped it up, because:
1. I thought it would be interesting to read dude's perspective on things regarding the Korean Revolution.
2. It struck me as a novelty to purchase the only physical book published in North Korea that was probably available in my white-bread county in the Midwest. I told the clerk at the checkout counter as I paid for it that 'this is probably the only book in your store that was printed in North Korea.'
I have several authentic vintage Communist Party Membership Cards. One is Russian, the other is Romanian (I think). They have the real photograph of the dude who was in the party, and the monthly rubberstamps showing he was current in his membership. It's amazing some of the weird stuff you could buy on eBay from Russians and East Europeans a few years ago if you are a collector of such items.
I have one of the Military Medals that was Issued to the Military Personnel who participated in the cleanup operation at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. There were hundreds of thousands of workers who were 'drafted' into that effort who got the medals, and again... eBay.
None of the above makes me a communist. Though if some stupid fucking 'patriot' like you stormed into my house, you'd see my bookcase and clearly I am a 'commie' and have been corrupted by the presence of vile propaganda.
No, I'm not a communist, nor a Communist. I spent enough time around people like that when I was in college to realize that for the most part, American Communists are like American Nazis, or 21st Century Klansmen: they are all somewhat deluded (because they think they are 'real') equivalents of Civil War Reenactment enthusiasts. They play pretend revolution and hold rallies and look like fucking fools any time they come near the real working class. They're foolish fucking adventurists (an actual Communist term to refer to that kind of people) They're playing around. If actual Communists ever tried to take power in this country, the theoretical idiots in the American Parties would be some of the first motherfuckers up against the wall.
So when you're fucking rocking left and right, back and forth in your swivel chair, throwing around the term 'comrade' to "redbait" somebody on the internet..... get..... a..... fucking..... clue, brother.
A Korea unified in prosperity,
And how big a war will it take to make the South Koreans bend over and accept that decimation of their economy? Or do we just do it by fiat and damn the people involved?
You know, there's a lot of homeless people in many large cities (and small). We could solve this problem by forcing all homeowners to adopt and house one or two (or a family, if they are homeless, to keep from splitting them up). How many North Koreans will each South Korean be forced to let move in so the wealth can be shared? You're ready to force the South to essentially do that, so I'd like to know how many homeless you have living with you?
"And how big a war will it take to make the South Koreans bend over and accept that decimation of their economy?..."
Decimation of the Korean economy would be what happens if we united South Korea with North Korea as one psychotic dictatorship.
What i had in mind was the other way around. Like East Germany before it, at some point North Korea has to accept that it has no moral right to exist and must dissolve, allowing Korea to unify again. This will permit the US to remove its troops and weapons from the peninsula and Japan to get its kidnapped citizens back.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens)
That's Hillbot Handwaiving. Even if there's nothing to indict her with, Hillary flagrantly violated her confirmation promises to keep a wall between State and the Clinton's foundation, with any conflicts of interest disclosed. Much like with her email server that people make excuses for - even if there's nothing to indict her with, there's her attacks on the Bush Administration for using private email, made two years before she started her own private email server and used it exclusively.
Everyone that know about NK and history would have picked something close to option 2, Ignore. Not because we are ignoring them, but they are hoping that we don't ignore them.
During the Cold War, the USA and USSR both had nukes. The world was at the brink of nuclear war. At the same time, both side knew that they didn't want to start the actual nuclear war. So both side waited out for a very long time while having some conflicts and competitions in between. The only thing that ended it was the fall of USSR internally.
NK is in the same boat. Their dictatorship is controlled by brainwashing the citizen about the west is about to attack. It drives the citizen to continue to believe, but their system can at one point fall apart when the citizen found out that the west isn't about to attack, and everything was a lie.
But if the USA attack or picked option 1 - The use or threat of deadly force. At least more than 1/2 the world will be deleted with this nuclear war.
If we use you scenario, we will need to add two extra things. The gun the man held can only hit a target within 1ft. And both the man across the street and you are wearing a visible grenade filled vest. Even if you don't play fps game, it should be obvious that the first to shoot is the one who's going to die soon after.
So in both the scenario and in real world, using deadly force is a big no go. You could still say that the USA should do something about China and other countries that are still supporting NK, but using deadly force is surely not the good option.
I agree but it was a measured statement: it is reasonable to think nukes help your deterrence.It may be wrong but it does not make you an unreasonable party. It does not make your position 'below par' on the international stage. It might also depend on the specific situation a country is in.
There is one clear case to me of a state that doesn't believe nukes help their defense and it's Iran, though everybody seems to believe otherwise. I follow Gareth Porter and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their assertions that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program and never wanted one. There are more stages to the nuclear stance: Japan is an extreme case of a nuclear threshold state. It's official policy is that when needed it can create a nuclear arsenal at short notice, in the time of a few months. Brazil has stepped back from their weapons program to 'weapons capability' status. Iran's position is that the fact that they have civilian nuclear capabilities has a deterrent value: if really pressed hard they could create nukes , which demonstrates strength and restraint.
China is interesting but I don't know a lot about their nuclear strategy. They have nukes but appear to show a lot of restraint.
It certainly raises the tension if you have nukes and that's part of the consideration. It may have the advantage of forcing the US to the negotiation table. North Korea already has a target on its forehead. They have been completely destroyed by the US in the fifties and have a lot of reason to think the US at least wants to overthrow them again. AFAIK they first started to work on nukes when the US invaded Grenada by surprise. They also consider how Iraq and Libya gave up a nuke program and then got overthrown by the West.
There are those in the US who also like to raise the tension: it's good for business and it signals to Japan and South Korea that they need the US and shouldn't be tempted to cuddle up to China. Simultaneously it puts pressure on China to reduce the tension (purportedly by pressuring North Korea).
I agree that the nuclear strike capability of North Korea for striking US is still close to non existing. That will change at some point to a real capability to at least hit one city.
I'm not sure that's a disagreement.
]Acquiring nuclear weapons is really dangerous. Having a few is quite safe. A country doesn't have to have MAD to be reasonably safe from major power attack.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You mean the same bullshit excuse wingnuts used in 2005 when Bush left a major American city to drown? The "locals" are completely incapable of dealing with disasters of this magnitude, that's why we have FEMA. Do you also blather on about how the local fire department in Santa Rosa should have been able to hold off the record fires sweeping through California? Asshat.
Decimation of the Korean economy would be what happens if we united South Korea with North Korea as one psychotic dictatorship.
I was talking about decimation of the SOUTH Korean economy, and it will happen if you combine by force the north and south with any form of government. Well, ok, decimation is actually "reduce by 1/10th", so cutting the south's economy in half would be much worse than decimation.
at some point North Korea has to accept that it has no moral right to exist
You should go on the road with that comedy routine. You're amazingly funny.
allowing Korea to unify again.
Why in God's name would the south want to absorb a non-functional society like the north, destroying their economy in the process? Do you imagine that the south has the money to rebuild the north? Again, take it on the road, you'll make a million from ROTFL audiences.
Isn't it time we had a reboot of Dr Strangelove? Good luck with finding anyone as good as Peter Sellers though.
Australians say Austria is welcome to his odious reputation.
I was talking about decimation of the SOUTH Korean economy, and it will happen if you combine by force the north and south with any form of government. Well, ok, decimation is actually "reduce by 1/10th", so cutting the south's economy in half would be much worse than decimation.
Why in God's name would the south want to absorb a non-functional society like the north, destroying their economy in the process? Do you imagine that the south has the money to rebuild the north? Again, take it on the road, you'll make a million from ROTFL audiences.
Unlike you, I had a real country in mind when I made that statement: GERMANY. When Communism collapsed, West Germany had to absorb millions of "lost" Germans who had been impoverished by two generations of the same kind of dictatorship, originally formed at the same time by the same country, as North Korea. This was not an easy task. Taxes had to go up to rebuild the East German infrastructure, including their part of Berlin itself. But Germany was prosperous enough to support this effort, and could now save billions of dollars of defense costs that could now be plowed into developing the economy of a unified country.
Before WW II, Korea has been one country for far longer than Germany had, so a prosperous South Korea will gladly support the cost of rebuilding the north, and feeding its lost population while this process goes on, because as with Germany reunification represents the healing of a wound. South Korea spends more of its own money on defending against the North than West Germany ever did, so its peace dividend will be correspondingly higher.